Comparison of Some Stihl Top Handles: 150, 191, 192, 020, 200, 201

I have always been confused by the differences between some of these different models and why some are highly regarded (200T) while others never caught on (191T). I recently looked up some of the specs on all of these saws and thought some of you might be interested in the comparison.

Model Bore Stroke Weight Displacement
150TC 34mm 26mm 5.7lb 23.6cc
191T 46mm 28mm 9.3lb 46.5cc
192T 37mm 28mm 6.8lb 30.1cc
020T 40mm 28mm 7.9lb 35.2cc
200T 40mm 28mm 7.9lb 35.2cc
201T 40mm 28mm 8.2lb 35.2cc

I love my 191 for its sheer power, head and shoulders above the others, but it's weight was probably a big drawback for folks "one handing" it up in a tree. The 200's have the next best displacement, and a good middle weight compromise. The 192, a little less power yet, but a lot less weight. I've never seen/handled a 150, but its probably a real gem for its feather weight, minimally necessary performance high up in a tree!

All of you wanting a top handle Stihl saw, take your pick!

 

Stihl saw model numbers and designs have you confused? Me too...

There was also the metal 020AV that was around before the 020T. It also had a top handle, and was really heavy.

 

I am in the market for a good used F150 for a "field truck" out back ................. wanna trade?

(What's IIRC - ?) Mine finally did have carb problems, but it wasn't until after almost 20 years of use. A rebuild kit took care of that. The real problem was that it broke its connecting rod a few weeks later . I can see why with that big 46mm piston slamming on it all day! Its all rebuilt now using a 16" .05 Picco GB bar throwing PM chain. Managed to get 3 loops of it off ebay . Cut off the carb limiter tab and did a muffler mod on it of course.

Also the 015 and 009 going way back, Scotty still uses an 015 I think!

 

I like the 192 a lot. If I had to use it every day the 150 looks to be even lighter. I not looking at climbing just clearing the brush once the trees down.

 

I don't know where they stand in reliability, but if you have been using them for YEARS, that's pretty good right there. Do you have the data on that 019T to edit into the OP. I was specifically trying to find that one but couldn't find the data for it in Stihl's online manuals.

 

019T is basically the same as the 190T. Same size engine as the 020T/200T, but has 0.3 less HP. Power to weight, you are way better off with a 192T.

The expanded Boog list of Stihl Top Handle saws (some numbers vary as to global model variations and metric to English conversions).

Model Bore Stroke Weight Displacement HP
08S 47mm 32mm 15.9 lb 60.3cc 3.75 HP
009L 38mm 36mm 9.0 lb 40.8cc 2.0 HP
015 -- -- 8.1 lb 32.2cc ~2.0 HP
015L 40mm 36mm 8.1 lb 32.2cc ~2.0 HP
150TC 34mm 26mm 5.7lb 23.6cc 1.34 HP
019T 40mm 28mm 8.6 lb 35.2cc 1.8 HP (1.6 HP in ZA)
190T 40mm 28mm 8.6 lb 35.2cc 1.8 HP
191T 46mm 28mm 9.3 lb 46.5cc 1.9 HP
192T 37mm 28mm 6.8lb 30.1cc 1.7 HP
020AV 38mm
020T 40mm 28mm 7.9lb 35.2cc 2.2 HP
200T 40mm 28mm 7.9lb 35.2cc 2.15 HP
201T 40mm 28mm 8.2lb 35.2cc 2.4 HP

 

Thanks StihlHead!!! Your addition of the HP data really helps set things straight!!!

 

Lightweight saws are a blessing

 

I had an 020av super -- not sure the specs -- but it wasn't a bad saw. Wouldn't want to have to split one though.

 

Yah, I have had a hard time digging up some of these specs on older models. I used the Stihl manufacturing specs if they have them listed. Some of the other specs are iffy. Even Stihl only has an estimate on the HP for the 015 at 2.0. Also AS is shut down for a complete revamping onto a new SW platform, where a lot of the info can be filled in from. The oddball saw is the 191T, with 46cc, but only 1.9 HP. It also weighs 9.3 lb. !!!!

 

Off topic / Is AS archiving everything and starting over??

Almost every google search about chainsaws brings up AS near the top - hope the info isn't lost forever/ aside from the fanboy BS.

 

Leave it to me to have bought the odd-ball saw 20 years ago! None of the other ones was available new at that time so there was not any real decision to have made otherwise back then. I realize that displacement does not always directly correlate into HP, but I was very surprised to see that 1.9HP value compared to the others, when the displacement is so much larger. Any idea as to why? Torque curve, RPM, carburation, air intake, exhaust, etc ................... My muffler mod and removing the limiter tab from the carburetor to free it up has probably made some modest improvement on the number, but I was wondering if there is more tinkering that can be done?

Just read two very interesting article regarding Torque vs HP, and all the various factors that contribute to each. If interested check out: http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/horsepower_vs_torque/ and http://forums2.gardenweb.com/forums/load/tractor/msg0215391823783.html

In a chainsaw, what really should matter is torque, not HP. In most cases, the more displacement, the more torque. As these saws almost all have the same 28mm stroke, the 46mm piston should produce significantly more torque than the smaller ones. HP is calculated on engines at zero load. I guess this is sort of like the older big saws you guys are always talking about, they ran at lower RPM, but had more torque compared to more modern ones. The takeaway I always got from those postings though was that its RPM that cuts (firewood versus milling) ........... and the newer stuff "cut" faster/better.

My bottom line question I guess is this: The larger displacement will produce more force on a crankshaft. If that force is not "showing up" as HP, and it is not all being lost to friction, where is it going ............ it has to be as increased torque, right?

 

4X4 - ? Let me know what you're thinking ................. I see you don't need a 460 now ........................ Doesn't look like Dex is going to trade me his for my 191T either